UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE JESUS MORA, a/k/a Jose Mora,
Nuesslein, a/k/a Jose Jesus Neusslein,

a/k/a

Jose

Jesus

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:07-cr-00062-RAJ-JEB-1)

Submitted:

May 30, 2013

Decided:

June 5, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Jose Jesus Mora, Appellant Pro Se.

Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Appellee.

Stephen Westley Haynie,

Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Jose Jesus Mora appeals the district courts orders
denying

his

most

recent

motions

seeking

modification

of

the

conditions of his supervised release and has filed a self-styled

petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court.

Mora has

also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and asks

that he be appointed counsel.
court

record

although

we

and
grant

find

no

Moras

We have reviewed the district

reversible
application

error.
to

Accordingly,

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, we deny his request for appointment of counsel and

affirm the district courts orders.
No.

2:07-cr-00062-RAJ-JEB-1

(E.D.

See United States v. Mora,

Va.

filed

Jan.

7,

2013,

entered Jan. 8, 2013; filed Jan. 7, 2013, entered May 13, 2013;
Jan. 30, 2013).
In

addition,

this

court

ordinarily

declines

to

entertain original habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241

(2006), and this case provides no reason to depart from the
general rule.

Moreover, we find that the interests of justice

would not be served by transferring the case to the district

court.

See 28 U.S.C. 1631 (2006); Fed. R. App. P. 22(a).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART